Among the first cases heard by the Supreme Court in its new term is one from Michigan. The state stands accused of violating the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee by requiring equal treatment in public-university admissions decisions. Michigan has committed no such violation. Yet to judge by the oral argument in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the Court, surprisingly, is closely divided. A decision against Michigan would be a setback for equal protection.

President Obama stopped by the press cabin on Air Force One, as the presidential plane made its way to South Africa. While there, the press had a chance to ask the president about major issues concerning Americans: the scandals, the controversial Supreme Court decisions, immigration, and many others.

Instead, the press asked about Obama's Africa legacy (or lack thereof), China's relationship with Africa, the commitment of U.S. companies to Africa, and whether he'll visit the ailing Nelson Mandela.

A dispute among conservatives over the ­administrative state.

Last month, in City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission,the Supreme Court’s five judicial conservatives divided on a question concerning the relationship between federal courts and federal regulators. Justice Scalia wrote the decision for a majority that included Justice Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts wrote the only dissent in the case, which was joined by Justices Alito and Kennedy.

With Fisher v. University of Texas, the High Court can finally put an end to racial preferences in university admissions

Abigail Fisher, a white applicant to the University of Texas, contends that the university, in giving preference to minority applicants while rejecting her, discriminated against her unlawfully because of her color. The Supreme Court will hear the case this fall; it is likely that Fisher will prevail. The Texas 10 percent law and the special circumstances of that university present complications, of course, but the makeup of the Supreme Court today differs importantly from that of the Court that decided Grutter v.

Advocates of small government shouldn’t look to the Supreme Court for help.

As is abundantly demonstrated by the commentary on the June 28 decision upholding Obamacare, the drama of constitutional decision-making by the Supreme Court is irresistible. Such a significant issue decided, in effect, by one man! And that man, Chief Justice John Roberts—is he a lawless sellout to political pressure or a brilliant legal statesman? Is the fundamental constitutional principle of limited national powers gone forever? Or has Roberts laid down a subtle doctrinal roadmap that will eventually allow the Court to save our republic?

The solicitor general had an interesting morning. He argued before the Supreme Court's nine justices that Obamacare's individual mandate isn't a "tax"—even though he'll argue tomorrow that the mandate is a "tax." And then the government's top litigator invoked the possibility of incompetent government litigators as a reason to reject an argument raised by the plaintiffs

Welcome to the Supreme Court's review of Obamacare. One day down, two more to go.

The special interests you don't need protection from.

To hear liberals tell it, the Citizens United decision unleashed a torrent of frightful, unregulated free political speech that will drown out the voices of regular citizens in favor of powerful and nefarious corporate forces.

I happen to be a fan of free speech. I'm not a fan of the alternative, which the government's lawyer in Citizens United admitted would allow the banning of books to "protect" the free speech of non-corporate entities.

The formal announcement came around 10 a.m. C-SPAN will have video of the nomination available, here, shortly.

In his introduction, the president stressed her background (Compelling Personal Narrative Alert), her ability to understand ordinary people (Empathy Alert), and the fact that he "relishes" the idea of having three women on the Court for the first time ever.